在2008年，两名被定罪的的杀人犯按照德国法律要求维基百科和其他网络媒体从互联网上删除他们的名字及记录。在本例中,被人遗忘的权利是否比公众的知情权更重要?
案例详情
1993年，谋杀德国演员沃尔特·塞德迈尔（Walter Sedlmayr）的凶手：沃尔夫冈·维尔（Wolfgang Werle）和曼弗雷德·劳伯（Manfred Lauber）分别被判处14年和15年徒刑。他们在2007年和2008年被释放后，控告多家媒体公司（其中包括德国的《明镜》和英语的维基百科）在网上文章中形容他们是杀人凶手并提及他们的名字。英语维基百科拒绝删除这两个人的名字，理由是这将侵犯维基百科的媒体自由。维基百科媒体公司总部设在美国， 因此法律上被美国宪法第一修正案保护，德国法律不适用。
德国汉堡的法院判决，互联网上的文章侵犯了维尔和劳伯的私隐权， 下令删除他们的名字。1973年德国的一个判例中表明，完成刑期后的人有权利要求以前的定罪纪录不再被提及。基于1973年的先例, 德语版维基百科的编辑从德语维基百科中删除了维尔和劳伯的名字。 但是在2009年，德国宪法法院推翻了1973年的决定，理由是此举限制了新闻自由。维尔和劳伯将不得不接受他们的私隐权将受到一定程度的侵害。这个裁定的理由之一是删除所有有关档案和信息将对维基百科构成过高的财政负担。判决后，德语版维基百科页面恢复了原来的内容和两人的名字。
reply report Report comment
This case reminded me of the case of an Indian-origin doctor in UK. He was accused of molestation (sexual assault) by a female patient. In the first instance he was found guilty by the medical council but the high court cleared him of all the charges. As expected, the media (both in UK and India) carried the reports of he being found guilty of sexual misconduct. But when the high court cleared him, there was no interest in his case. He then himself contacted newspapers and websites asking them to carry a report on the high court judgment or remove the earlier content. Fortunately for him he was happy with the responses he got.
reply report Report comment
It is highly controversial issue. In my humble opinion, it shouldn’t be permit to erase any names which belongs to the murderers in the internet or any other sources. I think that these names gives information about these people so anyone would take necessary steps when it comes to closing these people. Disclosing these names would be seen as a security precautions.
reply report Report comment
Thank you Alexander, I agree with you that everyone deserves a second chance in life, including not being publicly named after he served his sentence.
But do you think this is still enforceable in this interconnected world in which the internet allows information from all continents to be exchanged? Should foreign companies bow to German law?
reply report Report comment
Sorry. Please forgive me replying too late.
I agree with you points definitely. The answer to the former question is the fluidity of the information shouldn’t be controlled. As to latter, of course not.
However, I think this problem may bigger than that circumstance. We should consider the basic rights to live at first. Machine and law both are tools to ensure a normal society, before that, the protection of right of a single man must be concerned. Otherwise, even though regulations are in their way, make no sense.
reply report Report comment
Certainly, the past doesn’t mean now, especially to persons who had mistake. According to this case, the German court gave a reasonable judgement to murderer. After the decision, we should realize that he ought to have rights to live in the society normally as other people. Therefore, surely, he has fame and privacy. There is no doubt law should protect him in these areas.